| Literature DB >> 30028860 |
Tamika J Lunn1, Melissa Gerwin1, Jessie C Buettel1, Barry W Brook1.
Abstract
Fire is a key process in eucalypt communities, exerting a strong influence on the composition, structure and functioning of forests. Much of the research on the fire response of temperate, wet-sclerophyll trees in Australia comes from Victoria, where the dominant eucalypt is Eucalyptus regnans. In contrast, central and northern Tasmanian forests, dominated by Eucalyptus delegatensis, are relatively understudied. There is a need to determine whether Tasmanian wet-sclerophyll forests, though the same forest type in name, are functionally different in floristics and response to fire. Here we document the forest community response to a natural wildfire event in Tasmania-using opportunistic before/after control/impact (BACI) data from pre-existing monitoring plots. Uniting pre- and post-fire floristic data, we quantified mortality and regeneration of eucalypt, acacia and other dominant tree species, and tree ferns, Dicksonia antarctica, in response to wildfire. We also evaluated the density of eucalypt and acacia seedling establishment between burnt and unburnt forests, and quantified faunal responses to fire. Despite moderate-to-high intensity burning in patches across the plot, mortality of eucalypts, acacias and tree ferns due to fire were low. By contrast, fire-sensitive rainforest species showed low survival, though were able to persist in unburnt refugia. Eucalypt and acacia seedling regeneration was high in the burnt plot, suggesting that E. delegatensis forests regenerate without stand-replacing fire events. This contrasts to Victorian E. regnans forests, whose persistence is dependent on high-severity stand-replacing events. We also found some group-specific avifaunal and invertebrate responses to the fire event, which are broadly reflective of responses documented in other Victorian-based studies. Our results have implications for Tasmanian wet-forest silvicultural practices, which are based on the principle of stand-replacement after fire. The broader relevance of this work to forest ecology is in demonstrating the serendipitous opportunities that can arise with baseline monitoring plots.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30028860 PMCID: PMC6054383 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200905
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Live- and dead-tree distribution across the burnt plot.
A) Distribution of live trees before the fire event. B) topographic map of the plot, with colours representing height gradient. C) Fire-severity rating per subplot, where High = Scorching >5 m height and/or crown damage, Moderate = Lack of understory and scorching up to 2 m, Low = Minor scorching on logs and lower trunk. D) Post fire distribution of dead trees. E) Enlarged fire severity map with number of eucalypt (E) and acacia (A) seedlings per subplot. The average number of eucalypt and acacia seedlings for each severity class were as follows- High: 111 and 7, Moderate: 71 and 6, Low: 75 and 3.
Model-averaged parameter estimates of models.
| Model and predictor variable | Estimate | (LCI, UCI) | Weighted SRC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fire Severity | |||
| High | low | 0.35 | (0.05, 0.84) | 0.20 |
| Low | med | 0.59 | (0.13, 0.93) | 0.12 |
| Slope | 0.49 | (0.46, 0.52) | 0.17 |
| CWD | 0.40 | (0.12, 0.77) | 0.16 |
| Grass | 0.39 | (0.08, 0.83) | 0.06 |
| Shrub | - | - | - |
| Trees | 0.47 | (0.18, 0.78) | 0.30 |
| Tree level mortality | |||
| Intercept | 0.18 | (0.08, 0.36) | 0.19 |
| | 0.80 | (0.68, 0.89) | 0.25 |
| | 0.63 | (0.45, 0.79) | 0.09 |
| | 0.15 | (0.06, 0.36) | 0.18 |
| Diameter | 0.51 | (0.51, 0.52) | 0.29 |
| Subplot level mortality | |||
| Intercept | 0.40 | (0.29, 0.52) | 0.24 |
| Low severity | 0.34 | (0.23, 0.48) | 0.34 |
| Moderate severity | 0.37 | (0.27, 0.49) | 0.33 |
| Slope | 0.25 | (0.01, 0.95) | 0.08 |
| Eucalypt seedlings | |||
| Intercept | 0.99 | (0.98, 1.00) | 0.78 |
| Live vegetation | 0.49 | (0.48, 0.50) | 0.13 |
| Parent proximity | 0.50 | (0.45, 0.55) | 0.01 |
| Low severity | 0.44 | (0.21, 0.70) | 0.02 |
| Moderate severity | 0.44 | (0.23, 0.66) | 0.02 |
| Unburnt | 0.35 | (0.08, 0.76) | 0.03 |
| Acacia seedlings | |||
| Intercept | 0.93 | (0.84, 0.97) | 0.38 |
| Parent proximity | 0.47 | (0.44, 0.49) | 0.18 |
| Low severity | 0.35 | (0.20, 0.53) | 0.12 |
| Moderate severity | 0.46 | (0.32, 0.61) | 0.03 |
| Unburnt | 0.03 | (0.00, 0.21) | 0.23 |
| Live vegetation | 0.50 | (0.50, 0.51) | 0.05 |
The fire-severity model was fitted using ordinal regression, the tree-level and sub-plot level mortality using binomial GLMs, and seedling models using negative-binomial GLMs. Weighted SRC indicates the importance of each variable as the scaled z score, expressed as a weighted value. All coefficients have been converted from log odds to probability. See S1 Table for AICc and model-selection results. Note: sign of the estimate indicates a positive or negative effect on the dependent variable, CI overlap with zero indicates no statistically discernible effect. Non-fit of the parameter is demonstrated by a -.
Fig 2Spatial maps of Dicksonia antarctica and unburnt trees within the burnt site.
A) Map of burnt and unburnt D. antarctica clustering at the burnt site, B) Cluster map of unburnt D. antarctica and unburnt trees. Axes represent increments of 20 m, with the total plot size equal to 100 x 100 m (1 hectare). Clusters of unburnt D. antarctica are highlighted with circles.
Fig 3Graphical representation of the change in biotic and physical characteristics of the burnt site, compared with other wet sclerophyll sites across Tasmania.
Ordinations include A) species composition based on tree stems, B) species composition based on basal area, C) other site characteristics with fuels and D) other site characteristics without fuels. The burnt plot (pre and post fire) is circled in red. The black circle encompasses the burnt plot in relation to the reference unburnt plot. Ordinations were conducted using Bray-Curtis (dis)similarity matrices on square root transformed values.
Frequency of bird detections by site.
| Species | Scientific name | Burnt | Un-burnt | Feeding guild | Foraging habitat | Analysis guild |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bassian Thrush | 0 | 1 | I | U | U-I | |
| Thornbill | 8 | 9 | I | U | U-I | |
| Tasmanian Scrubwren | 8 | 10 | I | U | U-I | |
| Golden Whistler | 3 | 6 | I | U | U-I | |
| Olive Whistler | 4 | 11 | I | U | U-I | |
| Silvereye | 6 | 6 | I & N | U | U-I | |
| Superb Fairy-wren | 12 | 11 | I | U | U-I | |
| Dusky Robin | 4 | 0 | I | OG | OG-I | |
| Flame Robin | 13 | 9 | I | OG | OG-I | |
| Pink Robin | 8 | 1 | I | OG | OG-I | |
| Fan-tailed Cuckoo | 7 | 1 | I | OG | OG-I | |
| Dusky Woodswallow | 0 | 2 | I & N | C | C-I | |
| Eastern Spinebill | 1 | 2 | I & N | C | C-I | |
| Grey Fantail | 16 | 15 | I | C | C-I | |
| Satin Flycatcher | 1 | 12 | I | C | C-I | |
| Shining Bronze-Cuckoo | 10 | 10 | I | C | C-I | |
| Spotted Pardalote | 1 | 4 | I | C | C-I | |
| Striated Pardalote | 14 | 16 | I | C | C-I | |
| Black-headed Honeyeater | 3 | 4 | N, F, I | C | N | |
| Crescent Honeyeater | 2 | 7 | N, F, I | U | N | |
| Strong-billed Honeyeater | 4 | 8 | N, F, I | C & U | N | |
| Yellow-throated Honeyeater | 0 | 3 | N, F, I | C & U | N | |
| Yellow Wattlebird | 12 | 1 | N, F, I | C & U | N | |
| Black Bird | 0 | 1 | O | G | O | |
| Black Currawong | 15 | 5 | O | G & C | O | |
| Forest Raven | 5 | 0 | O | G & C | O | |
| Grey Shrike-thrush | 16 | 15 | O | G | O | |
| Laughing Kookaburra | 2 | 0 | O | G | O | |
| Grey Currawong | 0 | 1 | O | G | O | |
| Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo | 1 | 3 | G | U & C | G | |
| Sulphur-crested Cockatoo | 1 | 0 | G | U & C | G | |
| Common Bronzewing | 1 | 0 | G | G | G | |
| Green Rosella | 11 | 12 | G, N, I | U & C | G |
Species frequency was calculated as the number of opportunities (out of 16) at which the species was detected, summed by guild. Abbreviations are as follows: Feeding guild: G = granivore, I = insectivore, F = frugivore, N = nectarivore, O = omnivore; Foraging habitat: C = canopy, G = ground, OG = open ground, U = understory; Analysis guild: C-I = canopy insectivore, OG-I = Open-ground insectivore, U-I = understory insectivore, G = granivore, N = nectarivore, O = omnivore.
Results from the invertebrate analysis.
| Morphospecies | Burnt | Unburnt | Predicted response (as per [ | ES(CIs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Araneae (spiders) | 117 | 125 | +/- | 0.48 (0.42, 0.55) |
| Acarina (mites) | 10 | 55 | - | 0.15 (0.08, 0.26) |
| Grubs | 524 | 59 | 0.90 (0.87, 0.92) | |
| Isopoda | 17 | 98 | - | 0.15 (0.09, 0.23) |
| Coleoptera (beetles) | 249 | 239 | +/- | 0.51 (0.46, 0.56) |
| Hymenoptera (ants) | 7 | 18 | + | 0.28 (0.12, 0.49) |
| Lepidoptera (caterpillars) | 3 | 2 | 0.60 (0.15, 0.95) | |
| Mollusc (snails) | 9 | 5 | 0.64 (0.35, 0.87) | |
| Myriapoda (Millipedes and centipedes) | 87 | 32 | 0.73 (0.64, 0.81) | |
| Winged insects | 45 | 16 | + | 0.74 (0.61, 0.84) |
| Miscellaneous | (2.6) | (3.6) | - | |
| Total | 1074 | 662 | 0.62 (0.59, 0.64) |
The abundance and proportional biomass (in brackets) for each invertebrate grouping are presented for the burnt and unburnt site, along with the effect size and confidence intervals from the sign test. The predicted response of each group are also summarised. In comparisons where the confidence intervals of the effect size overlaps with 0.5, there is no statistically detectable difference between sites.